Jump to content

Talk:Republic of Crimea (country)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Russian ruble

Russian ruble??? Yes, there are talks of adaptation, I agree. But those are just talks as of yet. All financial operations such as government is getting paid by hryvnia and from the State Budget of Ukraine. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 23:51, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Declaration of Independence cannot in a single day change a monetary system. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 23:52, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

The map

Is there a specific tool for creating the zoomed-in view that can be found in articles such as Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia (country), etc. It would be a better alternative here... - Anonimski (talk) 18:01, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

IMHO, it would be better to use a map like File:Location UK-Crimea-RU.PNG, but with Russia and (rest of the) Ukraine colored like other countries of course. --109.60.127.225 (talk) 21:00, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
I think that your suggestion is better per se, but it's also important to maintain consistency throughout the articles. - Anonimski (talk) 22:18, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I also agree, that the current map in the article is worthless. You need a magnifying glass at your screen to see Crimea on it. Would it not make more sense to use just a Europe-map as a basis, rather than the globe? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.64.242.200 (talk) 01:34, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Proposed state

Until the referendum happens and a vote is approved on joining Russia (and therefore becoming an independent state) I would support adding the word "proposed" to this article, as in "the Republic of Crimea is a proposed sovereign state" rather than "the Republic of Crimea is an unrecognized sovereign state". It seems like this declaration was misunderstood by most. Technically (I have read the declaration several times to make sure), the declaration states an intention to declare independence in the event of the referendum voting for joining Russia. The declaration may have been necessary to clarify the steps to be taken after the referendum. Crimea can only join Russia as an independent sovereign state, so that's why they declared it. But at this point, the referendum has not happened yet, one of the options is to remain part of Ukraine, so I'm not sure it makes sense to write about the Republic of Crimea as something that exists in the present. --Stan2525 (talk) 04:07, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I see your point, and that's why I originally introduced separate entries for "Proclaimed" and "Established" in the infobox. The important part is that the decision to hold an official independence referendum on Crimea (together with the area of Simferopol) is something that can't be done according to the constitution of Ukraine, since only the option of staying would be possible. Thus, these actions are performed as an independent state that wishes to establish if there is popular support for its independence (followed by a union with Russia). There's also the fact that the government of Crimea has declared itself the "sole legal authority" of the territory, and this was done even before March 11. - Anonimski (talk) 08:07, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Independence declared?

So far, this article's premise rests almost entirely on an unreliable source that acts as a mouthpiece for the Russian government (RT). Other sources seem to state that the Crimean "declaration of independence" is only effective upon a "yes" vote in the upcoming referendum: Al Jazeera Euronews Associated Press -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:40, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Yes - Independence was declared regardless of the outcome of elections on 16 march.
Even if the outcome of the vote is a no, Crimean Republic will not be a part of Ukraine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.193.208.102 (talk) 01:36, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes the ballot mentioned option to stay as part of Ukrain, but the state functioned already separately from Ukraine. Taxes were collected locally, and local state did not take orders or recognize Kiev. The local Governor also said it himself that Crimea would not rejoin Ukraine in any case even if Yanukovych came back and order was restored (which is unlikely)94.194.205.159 (talk) 03:48, 17 March 2014 (UTC).

  • Whether by one source it is a proposed entity or one that currently exists, the article should be kept. Unless the Crimean voters reject the referendum (which any serious observer of this knows has about as much chance as a cat laying a chicken egg), the Republic of Crimea, proposed or in existence, will be an entity in five days. The real issue here for the five days prior to the referendum, is figuring out the issue if it is just proposed now, or existing now.--74.12.195.248 (talk) 02:18, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Not anymore, the vote was 95.5% in favour of seceding from Ukraine and joining Russia, big surprise eh. (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26606097)--74.12.195.248 (talk) 23:35, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

What the referendum is actually saying is that there are two options:

a) Join Russia

b) Not join Russia and keep being an independent state

So IF majority do not vote for first option, then Crimea will remain to be independent. I am not sure why, or how people have gotten so confused over this. I suspect translation errors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.64.242.200 (talk) 01:44, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Here is an exact verbatim copy of the ballot from the Crimean parliament: [2] Could you please show me where in that document does it say that Crimea "will remain independent"? —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 01:55, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I guess we will have to wait and see the outcome. There is clearly a lot of confusion around the issue. However, that copy was issued on the 6th of march, and this independence was declared on the 11th, which probably does not help very much to clarify matters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.64.242.200 (talk) 02:11, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

This declaration is a so-called 'delayed status' (similar to Gagauz independence in case Moldova lose it's independence) - it will only effect in independent state (which will thereafter apply for membership in Russia per art. 3 of the Declaration) only if the Crimean referendum, 2014 passes first (Russian federal subject) option as a result:
"1. В случае если в результате предстоящего 16 марта 2014 года прямого волеизъявления народов Крыма будет принято решение о вхождении Крыма, включая Автономную Республику Крым и город Севастополь, в состав России, Крым после референдума будет объявлен (will be declared, not already declared - Seryo93) независимым и суверенным государством с республиканской формой правления.". Note bold words (and wait for a referendum outcome). Seryo93 (talk) 09:16, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Option "b)" posted above is completly wrong. See this act - second option is about remaining in Ukraine: "2) Вы за восстановление действия Конституции Республики Крым 1992 года и за статус Крыма как части Украины?". Seryo93 (talk) 09:16, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

"Recognition None[citation needed] "

Didn't Russia already make resolutions to recognise it and accpet it back into Russia? Bolegash (talk) 18:07, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

No. At the moment they have recognized it as an independent, sovereign state, read here:

http://rt.com/news/russia-recognize-crimea-independence-410/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.205.159 (talk) 18:41, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Recognition

This source keeps being added as a reference to the statement that Russia has officially recognized Crimea's independence. The source, however, says nothing of the sort. What it says (and I quote) is that Міністерство закордонних справ Росії заявило, що прийнята 11 березня парламентом Криму декларація незалежності відповідає нормам міжнародного права (Russian Ministry of Internal Affairs stated that the Crimea's March 11 Declaration of Independence meets the norms of the international law). There has been no official recognition of Crimea's independence from Russia; at least not yet. Hope this clarifies the matter.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 12, 2014; 20:13 (UTC)

True, but there are plenty of other sources (that are not included here for some odd reason) that state that Russia Does recognize Crimea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.64.242.200 (talk) 01:38, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

E.g. this news report is one of those as such: http://news.am/eng/news/198528.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.64.242.200 (talk) 01:53, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Secondary sources which contradict one another is exactly the situation where looking at the primary sources helps. Thus far, Russia issued no official document recognizing Crimea's independence (such documents exist for both Abkhazia and South Ossetia, for example).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 13, 2014; 12:07 (UTC)
Probably, they would recognize it after the referendum, in order to pass the relevant legislation for the incorporation of Crimea into the Russian Federation, but apparently not yet. Apcbg (talk) 12:39, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
  • "Unrecognized" is not fully accurate. At least one other international entity, Nagorno-Karabakh has recognized the Republic of Crimea. Nagorno-Karabakh is also not widely recognized, but to be completely accurate and fair the term "partially recognized" should be used instead. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthseeker6969 (talk • contribs) 17:07, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Point of order - how does recognition by one country mean you're "partially recognized"? "Only recognized by one country" is much more accurate. - ILBobby (talk) 19:36, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

referendum results

Found this article: http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5in3MSQ9q1-0mWTFvNRSzyGRgo2NQ?docId=40b15421-b3fe-413a-bdee-78bd5a21fdfb&hl=enEditosaurus (talk) 03:08, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I updated the "status" box, which had become outdated. 74.101.187.195 (talk) 20:48, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Article makes no sense.

The article seems to defy itself. At one point it says that it is not independent from Ukraine, and in another it says that it is. (In reality, it has been completely detached from it, since quite sometime now) I think the sections of the text that reference to being part of Ukraine should be removed, because they are mistakenly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.205.159 (talk) 03:42, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

To early for creation of this article - DELETE - the referendum was yesterday - and nobody knows what will happen in the future ! --House1630 (talk) 21:41, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Contradiction

In the infobox, the largest city is Sevastopol. However, under the section 4. Government and Politics -> Major cities, it claims Simferopol to be the larger of the two. Unless I am dyslexic, someone has goofed. MrCrazyFrog (talk) 08:50, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Name and article status

The entity is still called the Autonomous Republic of Crimea. It may become necessary to split this title into Autonomous Republic of Crimea (1991) and Autonomous Republic of Crimea (2014). But for the time being, it may also suffice to keep a single page Autonomous Republic of Crimea and discuss the situation in context.

Also, this is clearly the page on the entity declared in 2014 and its recognition etc., it isn't a duplicate of the Crimea article, so can we please focus on the current issues and not burden the page with discussing biodiversity, demographics, economy and tourism? All of which necessarily concern the pre-2014 era, there is not yet any record of tourism to the Republic declared on 11 March.

Also, it is clear that the detachment from Ukraine is just an intermediate step, to be followed by attachment to Russia. It isn't necessary to create a full-blown "country" article for what is essentially a technicality. If next month this becomes part of Russia, we will not keep an article around on a state that "existed" for two weeks, it will all just be merged into 2014 Crimean crisis, and the eventual status of Crimea will become incorporated in the main Crimea article. --dab (𒁳) 10:50, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually, that is incorrect. It now calls itself the Republic of Crimea, as was the intention stated in the original declaration before the referendum. [3] --Stan2525 (talk) 10:57, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Specific disputes

NO ACTION
This discussion started before the Republic declared its independence. It's no longer relevant. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 12:38, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I hereby dispute the following specific descriptors:

  • that the alleged "Republic of Crimea" is "unrecognized"
  • that the alleged "Republic of Crimea" is currently operating "de facto" in any way or form
  • that the alleged "Republic of Crimea" is "sovereign"
  • that the alleged "Republic of Crimea" is a state
  • that the alleged "Republic of Crimea" claims a territory
  • that the alleged "Republic of Crimea" is independent
  • that the alleged "Republic of Crimea" has Simferopol as its capital
  • that the alleged "Republic of Crimea" has Russian, Ukrainian, and Crimean Tatar as spoken languages
  • that the alleged "Republic of Crimea" has a republican form of government
  • that the alleged "Republic of Crimea" proclaimed its independence through a legislative process
  • that the alleged "Republic of Crimea" proclaimed its independence on 11 March
  • that the alleged "Republic of Crimea" "established" its independence
  • that the alleged "Republic of Crimea" is "Qırım Cumhuriyeti" in Crimean Tatar Language, not "Qırım Muhtar Cumhuriyeti". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.107.141.219 (talk) 19:15, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I have reasons to believe that all these statements are false per the following reliable sources:

  • the declaration issued by Crimea and Sevastopol do not establish anything, it merely expresses an intent (official source: [4])
  • Al Jazeera, Euronews, and the Associated Press agree with the above.

Per WP:BURDEN, I hereby request that reliable sources are provided for the relevant text on the article.

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 17:22, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

It's generally bad practice to tag every word like that. The accuracy issue with the whole article is already tagged in the beginning, I guess that more material will be published in the upcoming days, so that it can be fixed. - Anonimski (talk) 17:49, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Doing this is just counter productive. If you do not know about a subject, it is not correct to just tag everything about it with dispute tag. Do reading and research about it. I believe that this section of this talk page should be removed altogether. 94.194.205.159 (talk) 03:55, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Russian puppet state or disputed territory ?

May I suggest to use the factual naming for the territory, please ? I may me called a 'dusputed territor', 'Russian occupied territory' or 'Russian pupper state'. The fact that Russian named it 'a republic' does NOT make it a republic Dago

Would you prefer Reichskomissariat Crimea of Banderlog Ukraina? 71.173.29.187 (talk) 16:13, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

You should be careful with such accusations. It is definitely a disputed territory. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 16:17, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Did Crimea and Sevastopol actually joined together?

WITHDRAWN
Found a source by Time [5] which states that, "lawmakers in the Crimea region of Ukraine [...] voted to declare their peninsula an independent state". That will be enough to conclude that both the republic and the city joined together to form a new shortly-lived independent state that united them both. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 17:44, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

It seems they never joined and that the Autonomous Republic of Crimea simply changed its name to "Republic of Crimea". Simultaneously, Sevastopol declared itself independent as well but remained as an entity separate from the new "Republic of Crimea". Then, separately and by their own accord, they asked to join Russia as separate entities. Can anyone clarify this up with sources? I can't find any sources that say they actually joined together "as a single united nation" before applying to Russia. It seems they always operated separately while all this was occurring. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 16:06, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Is crimea a independent country or part of russia ?

Is crimea part of russia or is it a independent state ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anti-religion1945 (talk • contribs) 18:21, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Please read WP:NOTAFORUM. Regards IJA (talk) 10:31, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

This article is a joke, right?

Is it me... or is this article really getting stupider by the minute? I mean... a WHOLE WORLD image just to illustrate some meaningless peninsula? C'mon, people! 24.201.209.74 (talk) 03:19, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Is this really that important to comment on? If you don't like the new image, just reverse it and add explanation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.64.242.200 (talk) 03:39, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Crimean peninsula isn't meaningless, but it would indeed be better to replace world map with map of Europe for better clarity. --109.60.127.225 (talk) 09:00, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
How to nominate this article for speedy deletion and under what criteria would be best? JDanek007Talk 07:05, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
@Jdanek007: If you feel really strongly, Made up may be what you are thinking of, but no admin will delete it under and CSD criteria. If you want it deleted, WP:AFD is the best venue for you to take it. --Mdann52talk to me! 11:07, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
We have articles on tiny and almost-fictional micronations, so why not an article on a whole peninsula that for one day declared independence? Sofia Koutsouveli (talk) 13:06, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Another ficational pupper state

Only Russia and Russian puppet states recognized Crimea - another fictional puppet state Kazakhstan did NOT recognized Crimea !!! the link provided does NOT say anything about recognition — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.205.56.234 (talk) 15:21, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

This is a very misleading article, indeed

I am not questioning the existence of this page (as it most certainly should exist) however the article seems to legitimize the actions of the "Crimeans" and Russians. This may sound like a political argument, however - the Republic of Crimea was by no means a sovereign or legitimate country at any point in time, but merely a separatist faction of Ukraine that simply declared independence - this in no way makes anything official unless the Ukrainian government recognizes this action. I would ask that the article opener be revised to make this clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:E:8D00:5B2:ACF3:95CE:6581:3357 (talk) 02:13, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Proposal to merge article titled "International recognition of the Republic of Crimea" into this article

The proclaimed state lasted for only one day. Recogntion wasn't a process as the state only lasted one day and there was only one UN country which recognised. I propose that "International recognition of the Republic of Crimea" be merged into a sub-section of this article. No more countries will recognise the former proclaimed country as it is a former proclaimed country. It now claims to be something else. Your thoughts? IJA (talk) 10:31, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Also there isn't anything in the article "International recognition of the Republic of Crimea" which isn't already covered in this article. IJA (talk) 09:52, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Agreed The table could easily be moved into this article. [Soffredo] Journeyman 3 12:32, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

- Anonimski (talk) 22:32, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think you've understood the proposal. The suggestion is that International recognition of the Republic of Crimea be merged into this article. As there is no International recognition of the Republic of Galicia, International recognition of Carpatho-Ukraine or International recognition of the Russian Democratic Federative Republic the proposal would be consistent with all three of those cases. TDL (talk) 23:00, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I thought that I had replied to the AfD. I striked out my entry now. - Anonimski (talk) 11:37, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Annexed by Russia?

Has the republic already ceased to exist? Some are saying Russia has annexed Crimea, while others are reporting Putin had only approved a bill doing so. [Soffredo] Journeyman 3 14:03, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

"Kremlin: Crimea and Sevastopol are now part of Russia, not Ukraine" [Soffredo] Journeyman 3 14:18, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Actually, a treaty was signed few hours ago between Russian Federation and the self-proclaimed Republic of Crimea, including Sevastopol, the 1st article of which states that the Republic of Crimea is considered to be accepted to the Russian Federation since the date of signing. According to the 10th article of the document, it is temporarily applied counting from the date of signing and comes into operation after ratification. The republic, nevertheless, was not abolished and is now considered a federal subject (a republic) by the Russian Federation, the city of Sevastopol being a separate entity (a city of federal significance). — Iguacu • !?ru-wp 14:58, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
In that case, if both Crimea and Sevastopol are part of Russian Federation, shouldn't the area/time this article is reference use the former country infobox, not country? Deathhard3 (talk) 18:10, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
It looks to me as though the Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol are now subjects of the Russian Federation, with a period of transition scheduled until the start of 2015. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:46, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Why is there a surprise? Who did not see it coming only shows that those have no idea about the Russian politics. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 16:22, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Independent or Russian

This article says that the country only existed for a day, but at least two editors disagree. Here an editor said "That article is wrong. It remains independent until the final passage of the Russian law". Is Crimea part of Russia yet, or is it still independent? Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 18:00, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Inconsistency over this shows Wikipedia as very unreliable. Editors at List of states with limited recognition insist that Crimea still claims itself to be an independent entity: here it is said to no longer make such a claim. A crying need for some centralised consensus here, otherwise Wiki is not worth the paper it is printed on ;) Kevin McE (talk) 19:19, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Its still independent for the time being, the treaty has not yet been ratified by the Duma and thus Crimea has not yet been incorporated into russia.XavierGreen (talk) 20:04, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
If that is verifiable, then the opening sentence needs to be changed, as it says the exact opposite. Kevin McE (talk) 23:15, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Can we just abstain from the whole "independent for a day" language? Instead, we can say that it is independent until fully absorbed /annexed into Russia. Eventually it will become apparent whether or not it was a day or more... Btw, Crimea as part of Russia is a whole other article...--Truther2012 (talk) 20:36, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
The treaty was ratified on the 21st, backdated to the 18th: [6]. With news organizations like the BBC corroborating that event: about 2/3 down the page, I feel the most accurate view is that Crimea is now disputed between a federal subject of Russia and a region of Ukraine, with no-one seeing it as still independent. Keep in mind if we went by treaty enforcement dates, as an extreme example World War II ended in 1990. Dralwik|Have a Chat 14:05, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
I've added more language on the ratification of the accession treaty to the lead paragraph. Dralwik|Have a Chat 14:17, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Have Crimean parliament and Sevastopol City Council voted on ratification of the agreement? Are there any information in a media about this? Aotearoa (talk) 17:01, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

See my post below too. Frenchmalawi (talk) 18:58, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Merge discussions

Someone is suggesting that this article be merged into Republic of Crimea. At the same time there is this deletion discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International recognition of the Republic of Crimea. The consensus there seems to be, that International recognition of the Republic of Crimea be merged into this article. Both merges cannot happen at the same time. The proper page to merge content into would be Accession of Crimea to the Russian Federation with a possibly a separate article for international recognition.

The fact that this country existed only for one day is no reason for deletion. We also have an article for Carpatho-Ukraine, which incidentally also existed only from March 15 to March 16. The lifespan of this republic is in fact far longer; it existed as a political entity from the February 22 putsch to the March 22 signing of the accession law – a whole month! -- Petri Krohn (talk) 16:26, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Full protection

I've fully protected this article for 12 hours due to the edit war that's been going on since Dennis Brown's discussion closure here. Consensus has been determined and if you don't like that determination you should not be edit warring so that your preferred version is kept. Instead, there is a discussion at WP:AN/I about the close that you may wish to contribute to, but please note that's not the place to re-argue whether the merge should take place but rather whether Dennis closed correctly. Dpmuk (talk) 04:00, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

For the record: RGloucester (talk · contribs) argued on my talk page (in spite of my explicit request to continue the dispute here) that “one cannot go against a consensus” in the matter of edit histories and redirects. I guess, the indended meaning was that one cannot go against Dennis Brown (talk · contribs) who merely discarded arguments against redirecting Republic of Crimea (country) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Republic of Crimea, such as mismatching territorial extent and international vs national(Russian) scope, and now refers to discussion/RFC [that] already took place instead of apologies. Nobody but bots cared about Political status of Crimea (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), of course. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 05:56, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
That is not at all what I meant. What I meant was that you should participate in the review at WP:AN, if you want to review the closure of the RfC. Recreating the article, moving it, and changing its scope is not an acceptable manner of doing that. RGloucester — ☎ 13:17, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

A consensus has been determined. Any idea how ridiculous that sounds? There is consensus or there isn't. You can't determine such things. If there really was consensus, there wouldn't be such a fuss. --Wester (talk) 15:01, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

In the meantime, until a "proper" consensus is reached (= never), should everybody do as they're pleased? There must be a limit to the anarchy. No such user (talk) 15:15, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
I use 'consensus' in the way it's normally used in wikipedia and was even aware when I was writing it that it wasn't the best wording but hoped people would get what I mean. I don't deny that there's no consensus in the normal sense of the word but for the moment we have a wikipedia "consensus" that guides the merge and other associated edits. That "consensus" can be challenged (which it is being at WP:AN) or change following further discussion but until we have a different "consensus" things should stay as they are. I do agree however that this probably needs more discussion and the "consensus" determined by Dennis should probably be seen as a temporary one. Dpmuk (talk) 19:04, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Wouldn’t be better for Wikipedia to say that Dennis Brown admitted a negligence? The discussion was active (and remains so), and if there is some piece of consensus now among Wikipedians, then it is that Dennis Brown with his ignominious “closure” made things worse. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 07:47, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

When would there be a suitable time to re-start the discussion about the future of this page? Right now, the short-lived Crimean entity (which included Sevastopol) lacks an article. In general, small unrecognized countries like this do have separate pages on Wikipedia, it's not against policy. - Anonimski (talk) 22:13, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Please participate at WP:AN. That will determine whether the closure was in order. If it is determined that it was in order, then it would likely be a month or so before the discussion would be reopened, I'd imagine. RGloucester — ☎ 00:41, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

On what date did Reunification with Russia occur?

I made some edits just now to clarify the above. Proclaimed on 17 March 2014; entered treaty providing for its reunification with Russia on 18 March 2014; that treaty was ratified and became effective on 21 March 2014. In short, it existed for about 4 days. Its entry into the reunification treaty on 18 March did not immediately end its existence. Only the ratification of that treaty in accordance with its terms did. That happened as I say on 21 March and it was not "backdated" somehow as the article had previously said. For information of those interested, there is a separate article on the treaty too. Frenchmalawi (talk) 18:56, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

You can read the treaty in English here: Accession Treaty. It is a simple treaty and very clear that it becomes effective when ratified, which happened on 21 March 2014. Frenchmalawi (talk) 19:00, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Reread Article 1: The Republic of Crimea is considered as accepted into the Russian Federation following the signing of the Treaty, and Article 10: Agreement herein applies provisionally from the date of signature. -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:16, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
You and I don't interpret the treaty the same way. The main point where we disagree is that I interpret 21 March 2014 as the day that Crimea became part of Russia. I refer you to this website Ceremony signing the laws on admitting Crimea and Sevastopol to the Russian Federation. It is the report published on the President of Russia's official website and refers to matters concluded on 21 March 2014 including things like "SPEAKER OF THE FEDERATION COUNCIL VALENTINA MATVIYENKO:... I want to inform you that the Federation Council unanimously passed two laws today [21 March 2014] that complete the legal procedure for Crimea’s reunification with Russia." ALSO "VLADIMIR PUTIN: Colleagues, I have signed several executive orders today, including one on establishing a new federal district – the Crimea Federal District, and have appointed Oleg Belaventsev Presidential Plenipotentiary Envoy to the new federal district."
I really think you need to reread the treaty. The Republic of Crimea is considered as accepted into the Russian Federation following the signing of the Treaty, I interpret that as a statement that Crimea's application is accepted; not that Crimea is part of Russia with effect from the signature of the treaty. Agreement herein applies provisionally from the date of signature; Emphasis there on the word "provisionally". Those signing knew that there were remaining formal legal requirements that would have to be complied with before Crimea's accession to Russia was concluded.
If you still disagree with me, I ask you to produce sources. I have produced sources showing that reunification occurred on 21 March 2014. Frenchmalawi (talk) 03:26, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Here is yet further evidence that reunification took place on 21 March 2014...

Executive Order on holding a celebratory gun salute in Moscow, Simferopol and Sevastopol, March 21, 2014, 17:10 - Vladimir Putin signed the Executive Order On holding a Celebratory Gun Salute in Moscow, Simferopol and Sevastopol.- To celebrate the establishment of two new constituent entities in the Russian Federation – the Republic of Crimea and city of federal importance Sevastopol – the President ordered that a gun salute of 30 rounds will take place in Moscow, the Russian Federation’s capital, and in Simferopol and Sevastopol on March 21, 2014 at 22.00.

Now, if Crimea was already in Russia since 18 March, why would the President be doing this? Frenchmalawi (talk) 03:54, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Ratification is still significant, as it represents the ceremonial approval of the Russian parliament and the formal completion of the legal process -- but the treaty makes it quite clear that Crimea's accession was immediate from the date of signature, and the treaty was to be considered provisionally applied from the date of signature. In essence, today's gun salute was a ceremonial event to mark a ceremonial event. I have produced a number of sources, which are cited in the article, including Russian state media -- the mouthpiece of the Russian government itself -- making it quite clear that Russia considers Crimea a part of Russia since 18 March. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:32, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Any source for your suggestion above that the matters done on 21 March were merely "ceremonial"? To suggest that "ratification" is merely ceremonial! Pheww, I have no idea how one could stand over that. So, if those ratifying had refused to ratify, what would be the position, eh? Ratification isn't ceremonial. It is an essential and fundamental step. Are you saying the laws and Presidential Orders passed on that day were really only "ceremonial" and had no legal effects? You are definitely saying that the Republic of Crimea was already part of Russia by then, so why the gun salute too and why was the Speaker of the Russian Parliament telling the President that on 21 March, reunification was completed? You don't seem to have engaged with any of these questions. I am not sure what media reports you are referring to but for certain, 24 hour news programmes or the like are not useful for things like this. They don't concern themselves with legal niceties.
Any way, from my experience of editing here, I can usually sense when an Editor is digging in for whatever reason (or none at all) and sense that here. I don't think you and I will reach consensus. I think we need to try and get more editors to input, particularly any with some understanding of legal procedures. I am not good at the editing requirements to submit an RFC but will see if I can figure it out. Frenchmalawi (talk) 14:17, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Dude. No offense, but you need to chill out about this. When a puppet state that came into being for the sole purpose of being joined to another country officially ceased to function -- whether it was for one day or four days -- is hardly a matter of life and death. I'd also suggest you stop projecting. The only basis you have for claiming the Republic of Crimea was de jure independent until 21 March is your completely unsupported opinion that Article 1, instead of meaning what it obviously means, said something about the Republic of Crimea's "application to join Russia" being "approved", and your deliberate decision to ignore the first part of Article 10. And your original research directly contradicts not just the treaty itself, but multiple media reports, including point-blank statements from Russian state media that Crimea was to be considered legally Russian from 18 March onward. So don't accuse me of "digging in" for no reason, because it seems pretty clear to me that not only are you getting really fired up about this (and I'm not sure why -- I mean, it's a matter of three days during which Russian troops and pro-Russian politicians were in control of Crimea no matter what you call it), but you also don't really have much of a leg to stand on. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:41, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
When it was ratified, if became legally bound retroatively from the moment it was signed.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:38, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Any source? Also, can you explain what was the status of Crimea during the few days between signature and ratification? How does "retrospective" work here? On those days, was Crimea Russian or not? One cannot travel in time. Frenchmalawi (talk) 14:44, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, it was. You asked around at Talk:Wikiproject:Russia, I came here and answered. If you do not like my answer, it is up to you of course, but do not ask next time.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:46, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
The source is the Treaty itself, which states that "Республика Крым считается принятой в Российскую Федерацию с даты подписания настоящего Договора" (the Republic of Crimea is considered to be a part of the Russian Federation from the date of signing of this Treaty) (Article 1) and that "настоящий Договор временно применяется с даты подписания и вступает в силу с даты ратификации" (the Treaty is provisionally applied from the date of signing and takes effect on the date of ratification) (Article 10). The Resolution by the Constitutional Court of Russia (of March 19, 2014) examined the relationship between Articles 1 and 10 and found it to meet the norms of Russian and [their interpretation of the] international law, stating basically that it is legal to accept Sevastopol and the Republic of Crimea from the date of signing the Treaty (which is March 18).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 24, 2014; 13:36 (UTC)
User:Ezhiki - You sound like you really know what your talking about. I have no background in Russian law. I came to this with a common law head. I am not trying to be difficult but rather to fully understand some outstanding points:
(1) are you a person who is familiar with Russian law? properly familiar? Wikipedia, being so democratic, one gets all sorts talking much about things they know little of so I'd feel better if I knew the answer tot his one.
(2) why does the treaty in question mention ratification?
(3) what was the purpose of the "ratification" if not to give legal effect to the treaty? From my common law perspective, ratification is what gives a treaty the force of law; given that the treaty in question expressly speaks of ratification, I am still struggling to reconcile its text with what you describe.
(4) how was the treaty ratified? what procedures were followed - please describe.
Thanks. Frenchmalawi (talk) 01:09, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Frenchmalawi, I am not a lawyer, nor is any of my degrees in the field of law, if that's what you are asking. I do have a lot of experience in the field of legal and technical translation (something I used to do for a living at some point of my life), but it's been years since I did it professionally. I do keep up with the aspects of the Russian law which affect the human and political geography of Russia since that's the area I've been concentrating my efforts here in Wikipedia for the past ten years. Don't know if any of this qualifies me as "properly familiar with the Russian law", but all in all, it really shouldn't matter, since our articles are supposed to be based on reliable sources, not opinions of experts, proper or otherwise. With that in mind, let me answer your questions to the best of my ability.
The treaty mentions ratification because such ratification is the condition for the Treaty taking full effect. That's the conclusion of the Russian Constitutional Court's decision as well. Their decision states that, from the Russian perspective, it is legal to provisionally apply the Treaty from the date of signing (i.e., March 18) as long as it is eventually ratified (which it was on March 21), and that it is legal to consider the Treaty as having been in effect since March 18 after it is ratified. If there were no mention of subsequent ratification in the Treaty, the Constitutional Court would in all likeliness rule that the Treaty violated constitutional norms and is null and void. Note also that the Federal Constitutional Law #6-FKZ passed on March 21 (after the ratification) explicitly states (in Article 3.1) that "Республика Крым считается принятой в Российскую Федерацию с даты подписания Договора между Российской Федерацией и Республикой Крым" (the Republic of Crimea is considered to have been accepted to the Russian Federation from the date of signing the Treaty between the Russian Federation and the Republic of Crimea), and that new federal subjects of Russia are considered to have been established from the date of signing as well ("[с]о дня принятия в Российскую Федерацию Республики Крым в составе Российской Федерации образуются новые субъекты - Республика Крым и город федерального значения Севастополь"), two statements which directly follow from the Constitutional Court ruling.
The ratification of the Treaty was done by the Russian President (Federal Law #36-FZ of March 21) after obtaining the approval from the State Duma (the lower house of the Russian Federal Assembly) and the Federation Council (the upper house). This is a standard procedure when it comes to international agreements of this sort. Here are a few links about the process (in Russian, but hopefully google translate will do an adequate job of translating for you): March 19, discussions about the upcoming ratification; March 20, ratification by the State Duma; March 21, ratification by the Federation Council; March 21, Putin signs the law. Note how the March 18 date is specifically mentioned as the date of acceptance.
Hope this helps!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 25, 2014; 14:01 (UTC)

Thanks for your time and effort. This isn’t meant as any put down: Being frank, no you wouldn’t, from the sounds of it, qualify to me as a person "properly familiar with Russian law". I don’t agree with the idea that that shouldn’t matter. I’ve asked pure Russian law questions. It’s hard for a person who is not a Russian lawyer or, at least, Russian law educated to answer them. Sources, without the background understanding that qualification and experience bring, are far more likely to be misunderstood. This is a general starting point for me always. On Wikipedia. Off Wikipedia. If I was asking about the mechanics in a BMW engine, I would be much happier hearing from an engineer. I also generally think that a “little bit of knowledge is dangerous”, which could be particularly apt in your case (obviously, I don’t know). That said, we don’t have a Russian lawyer here (I think) so we will fumble through. You said “The treaty mentions ratification because such ratification is the condition for the Treaty taking full effect.” So what effect did it take before it was ratified precisely? If it hadn’t taken full effect before ratification, what parts of it did take effect? To “provisionally apply” something may very well not be the same as you seem to think. I’ve already offered an alternative interpretation of the words “the Republic of Crimea is considered to have been accepted to the Russian Federation from the date of signing the Treaty between the Russian Federation and the Republic of Crimea)”. I don’t think it’s necessarily as clear cut as you think. It might be. It might not be. I am none the wiser than I was before. That “are considered to have been established from the date of signing as well”; again, I think this is open to interpretation as to what this means. “This is a standard procedure when it comes to international agreements of this sort.” That’s kind of what I thought would be the case. So if the procedure had failed (i.e ratification was rejected) or if the procedure had still not concluded (no decision, yae or nae) what would the legal position be? Would the treaty nonetheless be legally effective? If the Duma had rejected the treaty, would Crimea nonetheless be part of Russia now? My instincts are that you and I are probably not going to make much progress. You seem sincere and I don’t want to waste your time. I think law is, to a significant extent, a language all of its own and with its own context. I can’t read Russian. You are not a lawyer. Again, I do appreciate your efforts. I am not an edit-warring type. Although I think the article could well be wrong, I will hope that some one might come along some time and set out the position more fluently. All the best. Frenchmalawi (talk) 01:31, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

No offense taken. If you need a lawyer, a Wikipedian simply won't do. You should know, however, that finding a person who is "properly familiar with the Russian law" (per your requirements) and who speaks decent English and who is a Wikipedia editor, and who is willing to discuss the matter at hand is not an easy feat :) And while you may disagree that assigning more weight to sources than real-life expertise is a wise thing to do, that's the whole premise on which Wikipedia is built on. If you truly want your question answered properly, it seems what you really need is a Russian legal council, not an encyclopedia. That, of course, might prove expensive if you life doesn't depend on knowing the answer :)
To take a stab at your follow-up question anyway (in case you don't want to pursue other venues), before the Treaty took full effect, it was applied provisionally (with the "provision" being its consequent ratification at some point). Once the ratification occurred, the Treaty took full effect from the date of signing. I realize this is the same thing I said before, but I would like to emphasize that it is not my opinion or interpretation, that's the opinion of the Constitutional Court of Russia (as stated in their March 19 decision), as well as the fact stated by numerous secondary sources (which we use because they are usually a lot more qualified at interpreting such things than Wikipedians are). I can probably find a link to Court decision's full text, if it helps, but I'm afraid google translate is going to be inadequate in dealing with the thick legalese permeating that document :) Were the ratification to fail (i.e., if one of the houses voted it down (yeah, right)), then the Treaty would have been considered null and void. I don't know what would have happened then, but I'm pretty sure Putin would have devised some other ingenious evil plot to keep Crimea (like disbanding the parliament—I wouldn't be surprised). Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 26, 2014; 12:07 (UTC)
Thanks again. Agreed - it's hard to find knowledgeable persons on technical topics. I don't agree with your idea about the premise of Wikipedia. Cutting it to a few words, I think it's about sharing knowledge, not reporting guesses as facts. In principle, if we cannot get to the bottom of this, I'd prefer the article to expressly set out that it is unclear to the authors on what date the Republic of Crimea ceased to exist. Some say 18 March; others 21 March. That way the reader would know it was not clear cut. More likely too that some one with knowledge would pick up on the issue and better inform us. About your further stab at an answer, agreed that it was the same as before. Sorry. I must hope for some one with the requisite knowledge. Meanwhile, as for sources; today's Russia Today (official Russian Gov. website) reports, in a story about an ex German chancellor, that Crimea became part of Russia again on 21 March. For me, that is not a great source. It's just a media source, possibly not overly concerned with legalities.....But its yet more of the same as what I have pointed to earlier with the Speaker of the Russian of the Russian Parliament saying 21 March saw the reunification etc. But I think you and I have run to dead end by now. Others might pipe up. Frenchmalawi (talk) 03:03, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Status and article scope

Look, this is just a technical step in the Accession of Crimea to the Russian Federation and should be treated in context on that page, perhaps with its own h2 section.

I realise the appeal of listmania like "list of shortest-living sovereign states" but this is no excuse to maintain a pointless page like this one in an already complicated and confusing burst of creation of "Crimea crisis" pages all over the place. --dab (𒁳) 12:50, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Adding "Infobox former country", and keeping the approximate article length, would be the best and most informative solution in this case. As for the infobox, it should of course be without entries for "Anthem" and other non-established stuff. And "Official languages" should be "Spoken languages". - Anonimski (talk) 12:58, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Agreed with Anonimski. Just because this was a recent event doesn't mean it should be treated any differently than any other former country. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:42, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
what is a "country"? It has a working administration, and a process of government. It is physically impossible to "run" a country that exists for less than 24 hours. This "country" only ever existed on paper, there wasn't even any time for the international community to begin to consider its status, as it had been gone with the setting sun. It's not a "former country" because it was never a country in any real sense to begin with. --dab (𒁳) 09:12, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Dab - The very existence of the sovereign country, however short, was the essential legal basis for the reunification of Crimea with Russia proper. Existence on paper is very important. For Russian law purposes, it was a real country. Frenchmalawi (talk) 01:49, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, in law. But not in practice. There is no reason why what happened here can't be dealt with in other articles. Any article here will inevitably fork content from other articles, which is unacceptable. We have no need to confused the reader further. RGloucester — ☎ 02:07, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
I can't really relate to that. "In practice", the former State did exist under Russian law. Frenchmalawi (talk) 03:09, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Redirect targets

Tibet2014 (talk) 22:27, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://www.nkr.am/en/news/2014-03-17/597/
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Republic_of_Crimea_(country)/Archive_1&oldid=1088697309"